Re: Programming skills required by mathematicians?

Phil Hobbs wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 8:35 pm, Phil Hobbs
>> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Marshall wrote:
>>>> On Jun 26, 2:14 pm, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Frederick Williams wrote:
>>>>>> Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>>>>> I agree that C++ is a good choice.
>>>>>> You must be joking!
>>>>> Why?  I taught myself C++, and have used it to build things like a
>>>>> big-iron clusterized electromagnetic simulator.  The combination of
>>>>> C-like performance with the ability to manage complexity that comes 
>>>>> with
>>>>> OO programming is very flexible and powerful.
>>>>> Or did I miss something ultra-im****tant?
>>>> You did, actually: the existence of other languages that are better
>>>> at those things.
>>> So in other words, "No."
>>
>> If you are happy with where you are, and are not concerned
>> about learning anything beyond what you already know,
>> then by all means continue as you have been.
>>
>> If you are going to advise other people, then doing so from
>> a place of ignorance is being less than fully responsible
>>
>>
>> Marshall
> 
> Ooooohhhh.  I'm put in my place, for sure.
> 
> How much physics do you know?  How many actual working things that are 
> not programs have you built?  How many theorems have you published?
> 
> If the OP wants to be a language lawyer, or primarily a computer 
> scientist, then of course he doesn't want to be limited to C++.  On the 
> other hand, some of us need to build things that just work.  I don't 
> claim that C++ is the only way to do this.  On the other hand, your 
> defending Java as a numerics language is, well, parochial, and your 
> defense of JIT compilers as producing *cough* more efficient code than 
> static compilers suggests that your interests don't overlap mine by very

> much.  I care about getting stuff working, and C++ works for me and for 
> a lot of other people.  You don't like it, but I can't help that.
> 
> When JIT compilers vectorize loops well or sup****t MPI, I'd be quite 
> happy to use Java, if it offered something more than "See me! I can do 
> that too!"

Partial correction: MPI is available on Java.  The MPJExpress page says 
it's _almost_ as fast as C!

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs